kiev quality - or useability ?

dee

dee

Well-known
Local time
12:27 PM
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,925
Location
M25 south UK
View My Gallery
Hi
i have induged in a Kiev 2 with broken window , and a Kiev 4 from Oleg.
A moment's panic set in about loading the K 2 and K 4 , so I got the K 4m from Oleg
[ my friendly Leica dealer will take the dee-letions ] so I can USE it !
... and was looking at a 4am for a compact alternative .

BUT i have been reading some of the sites dedicated to Kiev history , and that pre-late 50s cameras were not only of better quality , but were the preserve of the USSR elite ...

i have seen a really good Kiev 3a , unusual in that it is a 1955 , the same year as a not-so-nice-more-expensive Kiev 3 .... Officially 3a production started in 1956 - other than a few during the test period ...

I am fascinated more by the history , and condition , of this £50 camera , [ less popular than KIev 3 and Kiev 2 / 2a ? ] completely wiping out the useability factor ...

and it may be my last , 'cos i am buying on borrowed time , let alone finances ...

common sense says quit whilst i am ahead , and that today , a 1980's camera will be less likely to break than a 50's beast ... but iv'e captured a sensible one ....

... the sole reason for the Kiev 4am , was two easy load bodies ... and cheaper ...

but reason does not work for me ...

watch this space ???
 
Ok, here it goes.
Once in a year or two, any of us happen to buy a used old camera in perfect condition. So you can try your hand in the pocker game.

But with all other OLD cameras, Soviet, Yankee, Jap or whatever, most of the chances are that to responsably work they need a full and money pain overhaul, or you be prepared to adapt to this or that defect.

True, the construction pattern of older Kievs is of better quality. Yet without that overhaul, most of the chances are they will not stand continuous shooting, as many parts and screws will likely to be loose, while other gears likely to be too stiff. Here the latest 4am have an unquestionable upper hand, provided you buy them from a reputable dealer, in mint condition. And better ignore all those grandma stories, flourishing at every corner about how he or she got it for penauts.

Of course, no one is saying an old Kiev must be bought for continuous use. They are so beautiful that buying them for admiration and display (perhaps some ocasional shooting to asses its problems) is more than legitimate.

Now, thanks to Russ Pinchbeck, and his KIEV SURVIVAL SITE, the Kiev cameras among all old cameras enjoy of the best back up self repair online service, and by far. For me it takes time to grasp it in full, but I advance continuously. You can rely on it for the long term investment.


Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a Minolta SRT-101 with a bouncing shutter that worked perfect for a year or two after intial purchase (used). Someday I will save my pennies and get it fixed, until then it is a shelf queen. My Kiev 4 has a perfectly accurate meter, and both my Kiev 4 and 4a are fully functional and a pleasure to use. At this point, I should lean in favor of Russian workmanship and durability over Japanese. But I am realistic, and can't help but think they both are good, but while time may heal all wounds, entropy takes it's due 🙂
 
Hi Dee --

Kievs are wonderful, aren't they? The intricacy, the somewhat delicate feeling of shooting with them appeal to me. I find the history fascinating as well.

As for usability, I think it would be best to try out the Kievs you've got for a while to see how well they work and how reliable they are. One Kiev 2 may differ from another more than a good Kiev 2 differs from a good Kiev 4.

I have a couple of Kiev 2's. A shutter ribbon broke on one of them very soon after I got it, but I managed to fix it with the help of the "Kiev Survival Site" and Rick Oleson's drawings. I have a Kiev 4am as well, but its shutter is unreliable, though the ribbons aren't broken. I haven't taken that one apart yet. Each camera has some problems, but for the most part the problems are different with each camera. That's why I think concentrating on patching up the cameras you've got will probably be more likely to give you a good camera than taking a chance on another one.

I don't find the Kiev 2 difficult to load, but it helps to have a good take-up spool. (The back of one of my Kiev 2's doesn't fit well, but I think I may have made it harder to close when I put some felt in the camera to block the light leak!) The rangefinders are about the same on all of them.

Whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy the Kievs as much as I have!

Best wishes,

Michael
 
Last edited:
dee said:
Hi
i have induged in a Kiev 2 with broken window , and a Kiev 4 from Oleg.
A moment's panic set in about loading the K 2 and K 4 , so I got the K 4m from Oleg
[ my friendly Leica dealer will take the dee-letions ] so I can USE it !
... and was looking at a 4am for a compact alternative .

BUT i have been reading some of the sites dedicated to Kiev history , and that pre-late 50s cameras were not only of better quality , but were the preserve of the USSR elite ...

i have seen a really good Kiev 3a , unusual in that it is a 1955 , the same year as a not-so-nice-more-expensive Kiev 3 .... Officially 3a production started in 1956 - other than a few during the test period ...

I am fascinated more by the history , and condition , of this £50 camera , [ less popular than KIev 3 and Kiev 2 / 2a ? ] completely wiping out the useability factor ...

and it may be my last , 'cos i am buying on borrowed time , let alone finances ...

common sense says quit whilst i am ahead , and that today , a 1980's camera will be less likely to break than a 50's beast ... but iv'e captured a sensible one ....

... the sole reason for the Kiev 4am , was two easy load bodies ... and cheaper ...

but reason does not work for me ...

watch this space ???
Click to expand...

The K4/4a/4am are all equally easy to load film into. I'm happy with the quality of all three Kievs. The ones made in the sixties are the smoothest, having quieter wind-on and shutters, but both needed some care and attention. The 4am needed the least amount of work, but the wind-on is rougher and louder along with the shutter. If you want to get the 3a for historical reasons, or to expand your collection then go for it, but don't get it just because it may be more relaible than what you've already ordered. It may be... or it may need a lot of work. The internals of the kiev are fairly hardy (except for the ribbons) and jsut need cleaning and lubricating every ten years or so... the same if a 50s body or an 80s body.

Cheers

Matt
 
thanks everyone - with ASdee gliches-in-the-head it's dee-ficult , often , to sort out WHY this or that - though , am beginning to realise that ''real people '' are ''dee's jointed too !!!
I have seen a reasonably priced K 3 , 1955 , which has brassing to the shutter blades - is this worrying ? It also has some rust to the accs shoe ,but i can live with that .... it's just the historical connection that fascinates , this time , useability takes second place.
i never anicipated that ANY Russian rangefinder would be useable - having had a new , rather rough Z 4 in the 70's - this has been a learning curve for me .
So , buying a camera which probably has problems , now worries me less than it did - even though dee's praxia prevents any attempts at fixing any camera ! I always end up with burred off srews / mising bits etc - not to mention forgetting what went where !
 
I have a Kiev 4AM that I got from an RFF member. It is in excellent cosmetic and mechanical condition. I've run about 5 rolls of film through it since I got it a couple of months ago and all exposures are as they should be (I use a hand-held meter). So far it has been pleasantly reliable.

I like its heavy, solid feel. But, yeah, cocking the shutter is a bit noisy, but shutter release isn't any louder than my Bessa R or my Spotmatic SP.

Ted
 
Need to correct previous post. I got out the 4AM, and cocking the shutter is not noisy at all. Also, I forgot to comment about "useability." If you had never owned a Bessa R you would be perfectly happy with this camera. When I first got the Kiev, I left everything else home and wandered around with it for a couple of days. I didn't like the lens lock, but finally got used to it. I also got used to having a film advance knob instead of a lever, and having to set the shutter speed AFTER cocking. Because of the dimmer viewfinder it took me a bit longer to focus than it would have with a Leica M series or a Bessa R series, but when I developed the film, all but one of the frames were properly focused.

Film loading was much easier after I got used to it.

Ted
 
tedwhite said:
I also got used to having a film advance knob instead of a lever, and having to set the shutter speed AFTER cocking.
Click to expand...

You didn't have to do that, it's not a barnack.
 
yeah no need for that on a kiev. And no need for a CLAer, it's a very easy to DIY camera. It's a DIYCLAable camera.
quality : no trouble
noise : none
better choice : a late 50s IIa.
It's the camera I like shooting most with, except my Rolleiflex of course, but that's another story...
 
Stephane:

You DO know about the new TLR forum that we requested and Stephen Gandy approved?

A IIA? Hmmm.

Ted

Oh, what's an F75 (showing my ignorance here)
 
I know that I have crazee head stuff - diagnosed ... but you guys are sane ?

Seriouslee , I don't need to go to the big roll film stuff - I like miniatures - and i have one or two Leicas - IIIf , IIIc , couple of 1923 / 3 1st / 2nd batch black II's - but the Kievs / Zorkis / Feds sort of fascinate ...

I am now gonna try and sell some more stuff on e-bay , and buy a really nice Kiev 3 , which I have previously described as top heavy ...

such is inconsistency !
 
Dee:

I was at the Western Photographic Historical Society camera show at the Inn Suites in Tucson yesterday. A very intelligent and highly articulate elderly gentleman had a table with several Leica IIIf bodies and some lenses. One of the bodies - a red dial - was in near perfect cosmetic condition and all speeds worked perfectly. He offered it to me for $350 and I was certainly tempted as all the LTM lenses I have for my Bessa R would also fit the Leica.

HOWEVER, I did not buy it as I simply couldn't see through it well enough. I had my Kiev 4AM with me, and when I looked through it, it was like day vs. night. Plus the patch was quite easy to see in comparison. And, by comparison, the Leica seemed very, very small, which I liked.

As I never buy cameras to collect, but only to use, the IIIf would have been a shelf queen.

I've always wanted one of these early Leicas, but I found looking through first one window and then the other too fiddly.

In short, the Kiev was much easier to load and use.

Ted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom